↓ Skip to main content

External validation of the APPS, a new and simple outcome prediction score in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
External validation of the APPS, a new and simple outcome prediction score in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0190-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lieuwe D. Bos, Laura R. Schouten, Olaf L. Cremer, David S. Y. Ong, Marcus J. Schultz, MARS consortium

Abstract

A recently developed prediction score based on age, arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) and plateau pressure (abbreviated as 'APPS') was shown to accurately predict mortality in patients diagnosed with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). After thorough temporal external validation of the APPS, we tested the spatial external validity in a cohort of ARDS patients recruited during 3 years in two hospitals in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients with moderate or severe ARDS according to the Berlin definition were included in this observational multicenter cohort study from the mixed medical-surgical ICUs of two university hospitals. The APPS was calculated per patient with the maximal airway pressure instead of the plateau pressure as all patients were ventilated in pressure-controlled mode. The predictive accuracy for hospital mortality was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC). Additionally, the score was recalibrated and reassessed. In total, 439 patients with moderate or severe ARDS were analyzed. All-cause hospital mortality was 43 %. The APPS predicted all-cause hospital mortality with moderate accuracy, with an AUC-ROC of 0.62 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.67]. Calibration was moderate using the original cutoff values (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit P < 0.001), and recalibration was performed for the cutoff value for age and plateau pressure. This resulted in good calibration (P = 1.0), but predictive accuracy did not improve (AUC-ROC 0.63, 95 % CI 0.58-0.68). The predictive accuracy for all-cause hospital mortality of the APPS was moderate, also after recalibration of the score, and thus the APPS does not seem to be fitted for that purpose. The APPS might serve as simple tool for stratification of mortality in patients with moderate or severe ARDS. Without recalibrations, the performance of the APPS was moderate and we should therefore hesitate to blindly apply the score to other cohorts of ARDS patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Professor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 62%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,816,222
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#886
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,808
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#26
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.